Some here are not on the USA side of the ocean, and yet they throw stones at things that are not their business to debate.

Sometimes those on the outside can see the wood for the trees, when those close to the problem cannot. But yes, I take your point, you can't throw stones at a house you don't live in.

Regarding Murdoch, many people in public life donate money to political parties because they know it will get them the ear of the party leader. If that party then goes on to win an election and lead a government, a heavyweight donor would "expect" their views to be "noted". It's called lobbying and it is not illegal, although some will see it as currying or buying favour.

If you are a multi-millionaire, and you think that a certain administration would be more favourable to your company in terms of proposed tax laws or other legislation, then it would likely be useful to be a financial benefactor. Morally wrong? Many people would say so, but it is the way of the world, and this sort of thing is coming under more scrutiny.

Some here are not on the USA side of the ocean, and yet they throw stones at things that are not their business to debate.

Sometimes those on the outside can see the wood for the trees, when those close to the problem cannot. But yes, I take your point, you can't throw stones at a house you don't live in.

Regarding Murdoch, many people in public life donate money to political parties because they know it will get them the ear of the party leader. If that party then goes on to win an election and lead a government, a heavyweight donor would "expect" their views to be "noted". It's called lobbying and it is not illegal, although some will see it as currying or buying favour.

If you are a multi-millionaire, and you think that a certain administration would be more favourable to your company in terms of proposed tax laws or other legislation, then it would likely be useful to be a financial benefactor. Morally wrong? Many people would say so, but it is the way of the world, and this sort of thing is coming under more scrutiny.

Morally and ethically wrong. That is the point.
None should be allowed to sway the election of a public official of any status simply because they have the monetary means to do so. Obama came from Chicago, where the mob bosses are used to being able to buy anything they desire.

Campaign finance reform and short term limits are what is needed to even START to right the ship here."Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

Some here are not on the USA side of the ocean, and yet they throw stones at things that are not their business to debate.

Sometimes those on the outside can see the wood for the trees, when those close to the problem cannot. But yes, I take your point, you can't throw stones at a house you don't live in.

Regarding Murdoch, many people in public life donate money to political parties because they know it will get them the ear of the party leader. If that party then goes on to win an election and lead a government, a heavyweight donor would "expect" their views to be "noted". It's called lobbying and it is not illegal, although some will see it as currying or buying favour.

If you are a multi-millionaire, and you think that a certain administration would be more favourable to your company in terms of proposed tax laws or other legislation, then it would likely be useful to be a financial benefactor. Morally wrong? Many people would say so, but it is the way of the world, and this sort of thing is coming under more scrutiny.

Not since Citizen's United. Here in the USA there can be no such scrutiny. Freedom of speech is how much ink and paper you can buy.

The trouble is, for many years the media moguls have sought the years of the political classes in most "civilised" nations. And the political classes have sought to make friends of the media moguls. Its not a "new thing", and no single current political leader or media mogul can be blamed for inventing it, as it probably goes back to the days of the broadsheet or the town crier. Money wants power, and power wants money, and they will do their best to satisfy their thirsts to their mutual advantage and mutual gain (probably at the expense of the "working man").Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

A fairly good summing up there. In the UK at least the Levenson enquiry will no doubt be having a bearing on this.

Even as far back as 1066 favours were given to those supporting a leader. A Lord of the manor was a term which originated with the emergence of feudalism during the Medieval era of the Middle Ages. The feudal system was established in England by the Normans following their victory at the Battle of Hastings. At this time all land in England was claimed by William the Conqueror and distributed amongst Normans as their reward for fighting for William.

The trouble is, for many years the media moguls have sought the years of the political classes in most "civilised" nations. And the political classes have sought to make friends of the media moguls. Its not a "new thing", and no single current political leader or media mogul can be blamed for inventing it, as it probably goes back to the days of the broadsheet or the town crier. Money wants power, and power wants money, and they will do their best to satisfy their thirsts to their mutual advantage and mutual gain (probably at the expense of the "working man").

The problem is dividing political processes and business processes.
The two should not be so tied in knots.
Or allowed to influence each other so directly.
Of course, and political even will influence business events.
But one should not be 'sleeping in bed' with the other."Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

Obama came from Chicago, where the mob bosses are used to being able to buy anything they desire.

Someone asked why Obama is so hated. The last president also elected by Chicago political machine mob connections was also hated. History records what happened to him.

About 4-1/2 years ago, I actually predicted such an event.

I must confess, I truly did not think the election of this nation's first President of color would stand. I really did not.
I really thought some idiot from the south would not be able to handle the concept and simply go ballistic and take him out. I DID.

Not that I ever would espouse that......it was simply my fear at the time.

I am rather surprised though, that it never came to pass."Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

I must admit Mark that 4 years ago I had the thought "I wonder how long he'll last".

It's a tribute to America that nobody has taken a pot shot at Obama. Maybe the USA is more mature than the rest of the world gives it credit for.

T.A.

Pot shot........
No, I really thought it would come down to a head shot.
Russian ex mil guy.......a pawn, much as LHO was.

He did not shoot JFK.

I happen to know that now, and live in fear for my life, kids.

Crap, said too much. Watch not just the Verpruder film, but the surviving footage surrounding it.
It was a CIA hit."Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

No, I really thought it would come down to a head shot.
Russian ex mil guy.......a pawn, much as LHO was.

He did not shoot JFK.

I happen to know that now, and live in fear for my life, kids.

Crap, said too much. Watch not just the Verpruder film, but the surviving footage surrounding it.
It was a CIA hit.

More conspiracy theory bunk. Your same statement has bneen made many a time in many another fashion. This stuff that you know more than others on this simply isn't true or you wouldn't "slip" and say "too much". Either lay out what you know or let it wash, man.